Android App Helps You Avoid Supporting SOPA Supporting Companies

from the nicely-done dept

Tue, Jan 10th 2012 6:00am — Mike Masnick

While politicians continue to pretend that SOPA support is a minor issue, there's been more and more evidence that it's a big deal to an awful lot of people. For example, in just the past few weeks, there's been a Chrome add-on to tell you when you're browsing a site from a company that supports SOPA, as well as an Android app that will do the same thing via physical barcodes, to help people avoid buying products from companies who support SOPA. But, I'm sure the public doesn't really care about the law at all...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: add-ons, apps, extensions, pipa, protect ip, sopa

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Loki, 10 Jan 2012 @ 6:04am

I have yet to try Chrome, but here's definitely a good reason too. I wonder if/when they'll have one for Firefox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JerryB, 10 Jan 2012 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  Have a look at Firefox's DeSOPA add-on. Not exactly what you're looking for, but may be useful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 6:23am

Now someone needs to develop something like this to use when voting for politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- IronM@sk, 10 Jan 2012 @ 6:28am
  
  Re:
  They have already. Isn't that why so many people simply abstain?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  There is one for democrats boycotting Rupert Murdoch/Fox News. Someone built a firefox add on after the phone hacking scandal by Murdoch's paper. It warns you if you're viewing a site owned by Rupert Murdoch or News Corporation (his company). I think it's called 'Murdoch watch'. There's another similar one that blocks all Murdoch owned websites on Firefox.
  
  I'm sure that with all the Super PAC spending this election (it's predicted $6 BILLION dollars will be spent on elections in 2012 this year, compared to just $1 Billion last year) that someone will make similar apps in a few months to boycott companies for supporting/opposing Obama & whoever the republican nominee is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, what we need is an app that just gives you the facts about politicians in a truthful manner. What they voted on, the constitutionality of the laws they voted on, what they support, who funds them, etc. Like a CIA Fact book for politicians. It would need to allows you to comment.
    
    One that notifies you of votes and allows you to call, email, write them a letter, or visit them when they are in town.
    
    I should set up a wiki to crowd source the specs on this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The problem with that Hephaestus is that even the fact checkers get it wrong at times. Look at Polifact, they've been ridiculed in the last few months for picking a 'Lie of the Year' that's actually mostly true (the 'lie' being that republicans voted to end Medicare, when they really voted to end Medicare as we know it and turn it into a much different voucher system still called medicare).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is why you crowd source everything. You just point to opinions and articles and let people dissect the information. Much like the way REDDIT or Wikipedia work. The best and least biased would be voted to the top, the trolls, and shills would be voted down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bjupton (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I like the cut of your jib, AC.
        
        We live in such a fact-free world, that it is tremendously difficult to break through with mere facts.
        
        We need to have a system that reduces incentives to lie. Right now, they can lie with impunity with no cost. In fact, politicians have massive incentives to lie!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    To paraphrase System of a Down:
    
    "4000 children leave us per hour from starvation, while billions are spent on [Romney's campaign] creating [idiocy] showers!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 9:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I prefer Bad Religion's "Punk Rock Song":
      
      Ten million dollars on a losing campaign
      Twenty million starving and writhing in pain
      Big strong people unwilling to give
      Small in vision and perspective
      One in five kids below the poverty line
      One population running out of time
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sgtsk8er, 10 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  There is a congress app, search H.R. 3261, SOPA is the most recent incarnation. It gives you updates and a list of congressmen and women who support it.
  
  Android: http://sunlightlabs.com/blog/2009/congress-theres-an-android-app-for-that/
  
  Iphone: http://realtimecongress.org/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 6:56am

Cue clueless troll conflating grass roots boycotts with voluntary participation with government mandated and enforced censorship of websites both foreign and domestic in 3... 2... 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:08am
  
  Re:
  Not sure if my post qualifies, but your timing was good....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:06am

I find it both funny and sad that we (the people) have the ability to create an effective censoring program when we want to avoid something, but the government, with all it's resources, can't seem to do so without looking like idiots or trampling our rights....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:15am
  
  Re:
  You're correct on that. The difference is the tools are OPTIONAL, not FORCED like SOPA is.
  
  If people could choose on their own with SOPA, then I doubt there would be as much opposition.
  
  Alas, you cannot choose with SOPA, but you CAN choose with these tools to avoid SOPA supporters.
  
  The real question is how long before the groups supporting SOPA use their influence ($$$) to remove these apps?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:16am
  
  Re:
  The difference is that people who use this app voluntarily downloaded and installed it. The people using this app have a choice to buy or not buy said product when given the information.
  
  With the government, only the government gets the choice on what all citizens of the US gets to see/hear/buy.
  
  Huge difference when it comes to these actions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 8:25am
  
  I disagree
  This is not a censoring program. This program merely gives you information from which you can make an informed choice.
  
  I for one did not know that the Coca-Cola company supported SOPA. Now that I do, I now have the choice to move to an alternate product. But no one is compelling me to or forcing me to... Therein lies the difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 8:37am
    
    Re: I disagree
    Thanks for that, I didn't know Coke supported it either. But for me this is a tough choice, I really prefer Coke over Pepsi or PC cola or Cott etc.. I will just switch to real cola (aka non-enhanced corn syrup) like Jones or something local. Hopefully it will taste good with Crown Royal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Some Other AC (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: I disagree
      There are many options that taste good with Crown! Not all of them have to be a "cola" product.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: I disagree
    "This is not a censoring program. This program merely gives you information from which you can make an informed choice."
    
    I was using the term in reference to the part of the definition that states ": a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter "
    
    Where in, the "official" is a program, and you are using said program to determine "objectionable matter"
    
    "This program merely gives you information from which you can make an informed choice."
    
    This program gives you the ability to censor products of your choice. Call it what you will, but if you write an app called "Boycott SOPA", and you use it to scan for objectionable materials (products) from a company that don't share your views, then by definition, your are using it to censor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 9:49am
      
      Re: Re: I disagree
      True you are. But you are only censoring to yourself. You are not forcing anyone else into the censorship. People do this all the time everyday whether they act as the personal censor or they listen to the views of other people.
      
      This app is as much a censor as the various ratings boards such as the MPAA ratings or the ESRB ratings. They provide information and information only. You can argue all you want that they have some kind of pressure they can apply to "bad actors" but that comes with any act that exposes secrets and information.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AJ (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: I disagree
        "But you are only censoring to yourself."
        
        Exactly! I was trying to suggest that people have the ability to censor what they deem inappropriate, we don't need the government to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 2:41pm
    
    Re: I disagree
    It is a censor tool that enables others to censor something, it is also a form of discrimination, I have no illusions about it, the thing is, is not an imposed censorship that will force me to do anything, if there is problems in censoring anything for whatever reason I can just chose not to use it and be done with it, not like a mandatory censor law, that will force me and everybody else to endure the pain for the benefit of a few.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 2:44pm
    
    Re: I disagree
    Try:
    
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola
    http://www.opensoda.org/
    http://www.opensourcefood. com/people/majix560/recipes/open-cola
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola_(drink)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re:
  You are correct. I just want to explain why "we" the people can censor things effectively and governments can't.
  
  We choose to do so, we build a consensus, we all agree on something, and when it is strong enough to silence the minorities we win, in thousands of years that simple dynamic haven't changed, the government often tries to impose that rule without first building the consensus, without doing the work that needs to be done first and that is why they often fail and are so bad at it, because the idiots in power believe they can do anything and others will just fallow.
  
  People are not sheep, they act like it all the time, but they are far from being one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:17am

The Dark Side of a good thing
This sounds like great 'data mining' opportunity for the MAFIAA's!
"We won't have to search for those Pirate web site do-dads, we'll have the criminals do it for us under the guise of helping them to avoid us!" --MAFIAA
I'm not sure which I'm over estimating, their technical prowess or my cynicism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:25am

I guess congress finally found a way to get the Entitled Generation interested in politics, threaten to make it harder to pirate content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:27am
  
  Re:
  Wouldn't that violate their main goal of apathy and complacency?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:50am
  
  Re:
  I guess some people (YOU) still can't see that this has nothing to do with pirated content and more to do with people feeling their rights are about to be walked all over and pissed on in the interest of control and profits.
  
  Everyone who STILL thinks this is JUST about free stuff is either an idiot, willfully ignorant, or criminally blind. You may be all of the above.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  Please point out where "pirate content" was mentioned in the article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 10 Jan 2012 @ 8:18am

I knew it. Android users are all a bunch of SOPA dodgers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brandon, 10 Jan 2012 @ 8:41am

Can someone please explain how blocking or filtering dns is okay for a virus or malware etc... but will hurt the net if used for copyright. I am against SOPA but this seems to be the question people ask me and I honestly don't know the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  how blocking or filtering dns is okay for a virus or malware
  
  Bad presupposition.
  
  What makes you think we're winning the fight against malware?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 9:53am
  
  Re:
  There is a false assumption in your argument. You seem to imply that we block malware and viruses at a DNS level, however you are wrong. We block viruses and malware at a packet level. When your virus scanning software scans your incoming packets, it looks for signatures related to known or suspected viruses and malware and blocks those for you.
  
  It may seem like there is some kind of higher level blocking going on, but really there isn't. It is all done locally to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    It may seem like there is some kind of higher level blocking going on
    
    Conficker Working Group: FAQ:
    
    Q: When did Microsoft work with ICANN and security researchers to disable domains targeted by Conficker? How many were disabled? Is that an ongoing effort?
    
    Up to 500 domains a day are being disabled as part of this ongoing industry collaboration.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ok... That seems to be a fringe event involving a specific worm. Additionally, there is no DNS blocking, only the registration (or rather preventing the registration of) specific domains to prevent their use by the worm. That is a far cry different than blocking the DNS registries for websites.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok... That seems to be a fringe event involving a specific worm.
        
        R.I.P. Waledac: Undoing the damage of a botnet 8 Sep 2010
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Better link: �Cracking Down on Botnets�, 24 Feb 2010
        
        On February 22, in response to a complaint filed by Microsoft (�Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1-27, et. al.�, Civil action number 1:10CV156) in the U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order cutting off 277 Internet domains believed to be run by criminals as the Waledac bot.
        
        (Emphasis added.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok... That seems to be a fringe event involving a specific worm.
        
        �Department of Justice Takes Action to Disable International Botnet�, April 13, 2011
        
        The U.S. Attorney�s Office for the District of Connecticut has filed a civil complaint against 13 �John Doe� defendants, alleging that the defendants engaged in wire fraud, bank fraud and illegal interception of electronic communications. In addition, search warrants were obtained for computer servers throughout the country , and a seizure warrant was obtained in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut for 29 domain names.�.�.�.
        
        (Emphasis added.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Domain seizure isn't the same thing as DNS blocking. Domain seizure is what ICE did with certain websites, except in your above examples there was actually a court order and due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Domain seizure isn't the same thing as DNS blocking.
        
        Oh, so without using a lot of technical gobbledy-gook that'll just confuse everyone, can you simply explain the difference between domain seizure, and
        DNS Response Policy Zones (DNS RPZ).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dont know if this is what you ar looking for :)
        An often-used analogy to explain the Domain Name System is that it serves as the phone book for the Internet by translating human-friendly computer hostnames into IP addresses. For example, the domain name www.example.com translates to the addresses 192.0.32.10 (IPv4) and 2620:0:2d0:200::10 (IPv6).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dont know if this is what you ar looking for :)
        
        I'm looking for an answer suitable for an expert to give at a Congressional hearing: �Suitable for an expert looking up at that high bench �filled with politician-lawyers, smiling their friendly grins, with their lawyer-staffs seated behind, whispering in their ears� �the CSPAN cameras rolling, webcasting to the world� suitable for testimony under oath.
        
        Is that the answer you want to go with, when someone queries �DNS Response Policy Zones (DNS RPZ)�.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        first of your link didn't work, so i was looking to explain what is a domain sizure an the dns, and if you get that you can understand the diference between dns response policy zone and domain seizure, and agian let say dns is the telephone directory so we have amazon or best buy or another company name wihich translate to a domine name in the dns, the telephone number is somthing like 0180098453 and this number tranlate to the ip adress, so a domain seizure is when you erease from the telephone directory the name of the company and only leave the phone number so the company still can be reached.
        
        So i will try to explain what i got after reading the response policy zone because im not sure you got why domine seizure is not working, in response policy zone you may friend cant use neither the name nor the phone number because if those names are blocked in the server or in the directory it will redirect you to another site, o and i forgot to say they are based on reputation as far as i read it.
        hope it help you and if a more tech savvy person have anything to say or correct fel free to do it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        first of your link didn't work
        
        I only linked to the DNS RPZ draft in the earlier of the two posts where I mentioned it. Instead of repeating that link, here's Paul Vixie's explanation of the technology:
        
        �.�.�.�.
        
        [W]e at ISC have devised a technology called Response Policy Zones (DNS RPZ) that allows cooperating good guys to provide and consume reputation information about domain names. The subscribing agent in this case is a recursive DNS server, whereas in the original RBL it was an e-mail (SMTP) server. But, the basic idea is otherwise the same. If your recursive DNS server has a policy rule which forbids certain domain names from being resolvable, then they will not resolve. And, it's possible to either create and maintain these rules locally, or, import them from a reputation provider.
        
        �.�.�.�.
        
        (Emphasis added.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Domain_name_space.svg
        
        Trust is the issue, DNS is voluntary, if people don't use it, it become less, it took a long time for people to agree to use it and proposals to start censoring it undermine the unity created around it, which undermines security.
        
        DNS RPZ is no different you can block a DNS on your end, but other regions of authority that don't block it will still be accessible so you need consensus to start those things, if you compromise trust in that system enough people will find alternatives and any blocking besides the universal accepted(i.e. virus, pedo material) is not acceptable and can't be enforced around the globe.
        
        People want go out of their way to find ways to get infected by a virus or to watch child porn but they will do it for other things.
        
        https://grepular.com/Punching_through_The_Great_Firewall_of_TMobile
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You want someone to "simply" explain the difference between domain seizure and something so technically specific the explanation you linked literally opens with: "This memo describes a methodology in use inside ISC which may be of use to other members of the Internet technical community?" That request doesn't make any sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        With a domain seizure, the actual domain registration is transferred to the seizing organization (eq the government) The person or entity which owned the domain no longer has control of the domain nor its DNS settings.
        
        DNS blocking is something different. In DNS blocking, the domain stays registered to the person or entity that registered it, but its DNS registry is rerouted to a different IP than the actual site. I don't know if you are familiar with a man in the middle attack, but it is similar to that.
        
        When it comes to DNS blocking for spam and malware, that is done on a voluntary basis by email service providers, and ISPs. If they want to, they will reference outgoing and incoming packets for IP addresses listed in the black list and block them if needed. While this is noble on the surface it can be overused and often abused. My last email service host had a tendency to over block and many emails I actually expected were blocked and I had no control over what was and wasn't blocked. I ended up leaving that email service provider for that reason. I just couldn't do business with them.
        
        Under a federally mandated DNS blocking system, such black lists would become required and all ISPs would be forced to read them and apply them. While the security concerns most often expressed primarily deal with DNSSEC (which I honestly don't know a whole lot about) there are still plenty of security and privacy concerns for general DNS blocking. For one, ISPs will no longer be acting as a "dumb terminal" for your internet connection. They will need to actively scan all your requests and store that information. Which could lead to some very embarrassing and at times damaging results depending on the types of sites and services you use.
        
        While there is a lot of jargon and technical details on DNS blocking at this wikipedia page, I think you would be able to learn a bit more about how it is currently used and what some of the problems might be.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To use the example provided by the AC with regards to the telephone number, the difference between seizures and blocking is easy to see.
        
        You have a telephone number that is listed in the yellowpages. When someone looks up this number and dials it, your phone rings. DNS blocking essentially delists your phone number from the yellowpages. If someone knows the number they can still still dial it and your phone will ring. DNS blocking doesn't take away your website and anyone can still access if they know the direct dial. Domain seizure on the other hand means that when someone dials your number, your phone no longer rings and someone else's does (like the police station). You no longer have the domain name and when someone tries to access it they get a message from the new owner (in recent cases it has been an ICE banner).
        
        Is that the type of clarification you're looking for? I tried to make it simple enough that even a congressman could understand :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 1:32pm
  
  Re:
  It's a question of pervasiveness. It's like explaining how the jail time is okay for grand theft auto but will hurt society if used for shoplifting a pack of gum. There's a huge difference between seizure in a criminal case where there is clear evidence of damage from ongoing criminal activity and seizure in a case that's clearly not a crime at all. Then there's the broadness of the blocking. It doesn't target specific activity, it targets entire sites. In the case of a botnet where the DNS is used exclusively for the virus or malware to communicate with itself or controllers that's an entirely different case than a public facing website that has a forum and/or a comment section in addition to user uploaded content or lists of links.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 3:11pm
  
  Re:
  Blocking a virus doesn't undermine the public trust, blocking anything else does, which creates the need to find alternative routes. Which undermines the system today that is voluntary and creates uncertainty for the future since people can't develop solutions for things they don't know.
  
  Further DNSSEC will not allow you to fake the DNS like today, so people will get very aware of what is happening, you can't mandate consensus you have to build it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re:
  The reason why it is ok to block virus and malware etc and not other things is simple, would you go out of your way to route around to get a virus or malware?
  
  I wouldn't, but millions of people would adopt alternatives to route around other types of censoring.
  
  That is why I don't care if SOPA passes from a public point of view the only interested parties here are business, SOPA can be used to cause great harm to business in the incorrect assumption that business can control customers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 11:07am

SOPA/PIPA = WAR !!!
I am hoping that the backlash of doing this will be so huge in the end it will wash over these assholes like a tidal wave of discontent.
The supporters of SOPA/PIPA are not going to like what millions of pissed off adults will do to them.You try and take away someone's freedom and that person will fight back if they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 4:27pm

Defeating the Great Firewall of T-Mobile
Quote:
About six weeks ago, somebody else pointed out the same problem on the T-Mobile forums. A further two people and myself have commented on that thread due to discovering this issue. One of the commenters stated:

I finally got to the bottom of this. I was contacted by T-Mobile technical support today and was told that they are now actively looking for and blocking any TLS-secured SMTP sessions. So, it is a deliberate policy after all, despite what the support staff have been saying on here, twitter and on 150. They told me it is something they have been rolling out over the last three months - which explains why it was intermittent and dependent on IP address and APN to begin with.

It seems the only server they want you to use for sending email when connected to their network is smtp.t-email.co.uk.

Source: Grepular: Punching through The Great Firewall of T-Mobile by Mike Cardwell

The same T-Mobile that wants to decide what the meaning of browsing is.

Quote:
"Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games. We've got a fair use policy but ours means that you'll always be able to browse the internet, it's only when you go over the fair use amount that you won't be able to download, stream and watch video clips."

Source: TechDirt: T-Mobile UK Decides Mobile Broadband Shouldn't Actually Be Used For Mobile Broadband by Mike Masnick

Messing around with the DNS for anything but universal accepted things is just asking to undermine the public trust on that system and see people migrate to alternative routes.

People will not go out of their way to get infected by a virus, they will not actively adopt alternatives just to view child porn but they will do it for everything else and knowledge of how it can be done just spreads like wildfire on dry season.

Then what, what people will do to secure those insecure paths?

Will this become a race to block all protocols that emerge? all applications?

It seems that is going in the wrong direction, since people are not trying to build a consensus to implement anything but mandating it and hoping others will accepted on faith alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TMOBILE ARE CENSORING, 15 Apr 2012 @ 1:26pm

TMOBILE ARE CENSORING AND BLOCKING MANY WEBSITES
TMOBILE ARE CENSORING AND BLOCKING MANY WEBSITES IN THE UK. THEY HAVE BLOCKED ACCESS TO MANY CONTROVERSIAL SITES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]